TY - JOUR
T1 - Errors in the Diagnosis of Visual Field Progression in Normal-tension Glaucoma
AU - The Normal-tension Glaucoma Study Group
AU - Schulzer, Michael
AU - Airaksinen, P. Juhani
AU - Alward, Wallace L.
AU - Amyot, Marcel
AU - Anderson, Douglas R.
AU - Balazsi, Gordon
AU - Blondeau, Pierre
AU - Cashwell, L. Frank
AU - Cohen, John S.
AU - Desjardins, Daniel
AU - Dickens, Christopher
AU - Douglas, Gordon R.
AU - Drance, Stephen M.
AU - Feldman, Frederick
AU - Geijssen, H. Caroline
AU - Grajewski, Alana
AU - Greve, Erik
AU - Hetherington, John
AU - Heuer, Dale
AU - Hodapp, Elizabeth
AU - Hoskins, H. Dunbar
AU - Iwach, Andrew
AU - Jampel, Henry
AU - Kasner, Oscar
AU - Kitazawa, Yoshiaki
AU - Komulainen, Rauni
AU - Levene, Ralph
AU - Liebmann, Jeffrey
AU - Mikelberg, Frederick S.
AU - Mills, Richard
AU - Minckler, Donald
AU - Motolko, Michael
AU - Perkins, Todd
AU - Pollock, Irvin
AU - Quigley, Harry
AU - Ritch, Robert
AU - Rosanelli, E. George
AU - Schwartz, Arthur
AU - Shirato, Shiroki
AU - Tomita, Geoji
AU - Trope, Graham
AU - Tuulonen, Anja
AU - Wilensky, Jacob
PY - 1994
Y1 - 1994
N2 - Background: Despite strictly defined criteria for visual field progression in the ongoing Normal-tension Glaucoma Study, the authors noted a surprisingly large number of patients reaching the endpoint. Traditional methods could not be used to check the diagnostic accuracy of their criteria, because no "gold standard" was established for distinguishing true change from physiologic long-term fluctuation. Methods: The authors developed a statistical method based on the results of duplicate tests for progression in their subjects. This method allowed the authors to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of their diagnostic criterion. It also estimated the true incidence of progression and provided standard errors for the estimates. Results: The authors found that their original strict criteria for progression, based on duplicate testing, produced false calls of progression 57% of the time. By raising the requirement for deterioration and by repeating the entire sequence of duplicate testing once more, the authors have successfully reduced the rate of false calls to 2%. Conclusion: Accuracy in recognizing progression is improved by not accepting small changes as evidence of progression and by confirming the findings on repeat testing.
AB - Background: Despite strictly defined criteria for visual field progression in the ongoing Normal-tension Glaucoma Study, the authors noted a surprisingly large number of patients reaching the endpoint. Traditional methods could not be used to check the diagnostic accuracy of their criteria, because no "gold standard" was established for distinguishing true change from physiologic long-term fluctuation. Methods: The authors developed a statistical method based on the results of duplicate tests for progression in their subjects. This method allowed the authors to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of their diagnostic criterion. It also estimated the true incidence of progression and provided standard errors for the estimates. Results: The authors found that their original strict criteria for progression, based on duplicate testing, produced false calls of progression 57% of the time. By raising the requirement for deterioration and by repeating the entire sequence of duplicate testing once more, the authors have successfully reduced the rate of false calls to 2%. Conclusion: Accuracy in recognizing progression is improved by not accepting small changes as evidence of progression and by confirming the findings on repeat testing.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027970668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027970668&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31133-X
DO - 10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31133-X
M3 - Article
C2 - 8090461
AN - SCOPUS:0027970668
SN - 0161-6420
VL - 101
SP - 1589
EP - 1595
JO - Ophthalmology
JF - Ophthalmology
IS - 9
ER -